Best Players in the Open Era (5th Tier)

In the fifth tier we have about 17 players (asterisk means approximate rating based upon limited statistical information from the 1970s and early 1980s):

Stan Smith (5.10*), Manuel Orantes (4.88*), Jan Kodes (4.84*), Yannick Noah (4.33*)

Lleyton Hewitt (4.98), Miroslav Mecir (4.83), Michael Stich (4.78), Gustavo Kuerten (4.72), Yevgeny Kafelnikov (4.67), Michael Chang (4.58), Thomas Muster (4.52), Patrick Rafter (4.49), Marat Safin (4.43), Goran Ivanisevic (4.40), Juan Carlos Ferrero (4.30)

Honorable Mention: David Ferrer (4.37), David Nalbandian (4.32)

Only two of these players won three Grand Slam titles: Kuerten and Kodes. The rest achieved one or two majors except Mecir, Nalbandian, and Ferrer (pictured above). Miroslav Mecir is probably the best tennis player to never win a Grand Slam, though one could make arguments for Nalbandian and Ferrer. David Nalbandian is a solid 8-11 lifetime against Roger Federer, while David Ferrer has an abysmal record versus Federer with zero wins in 16 attempts. Ferrer's consistency over the last three years should not be underestimated, however. He has improved greatly since the beginning of 2012, once reaching 10 consecutive quarterfinals in Grand Slams. Djokovic and Nadal have ended his championship dreams in six of those ten GS tournaments, including the 2013 French Open final. If not for their complete domination of the sport, Ferrer might have one or two GS trophies in his home today.

Kafelnikov and Safin, the two best Russians ever to play tennis in singles, both won two GS titles, which were each spread apart by many years ('96 French & '99 Australian for Yevgeny, '00 United States & '05 Australian for Marat). They also split their four head-to-head meetings, including one in their native land (Saint Petersburg). Both deserve to be inducted into the Hall of Fame at Newport, Rhode Island. Kafelnikov is especially qualified because he was also a great doubles player (4 GS), being the last to win in singles and doubles at the same GS tournament (French Open, 1996). Adding his Olympic Gold medal in 2000 singles competition into the conversation, I am left to suspect his current exclusion from the Hall of Fame is more political than anything else (Yevgeny Kafelnikov and Marat Safin are originally from the former Soviet Union). Michael Chang, Patrick Rafter, and Gustavo Kuerten, who retired only four years before he was selected, all have similar resumes as recently elected Hall of Fame members.

Gustavo Kuerten ("Guga") outlasted his opponents with his boundless energy, and this was especially effective on clay. Before Rafael Nadal, it was he who stole the spotlight at Roland Garros, particularly in 1997 when he knocked off defending champion Kafelnikov and two-time winner Sergi Bruguera ('93, '94). At that time he was unseeded with a world rank of #66. Goran Ivanisevic won Wimbledon as a qualifier who was seeded 125th in the world! Considering the circumstances surrounding both players, Gustavo and Goran were equally impressive in winning their first GS championships. Michael Stich was another underrated tennis player, beating Courier, Edberg, and Becker (all ranked in higher tiers) en route to his first and only Grand Slam title at Wimbledon in 1991. Surprisingly, he has won more in his career than he has lost against the likes of Sampras (5-4), Edberg (10-6), and Courier (7-5). Definitely overshadowed by the American stars of the 1990s and his compatriot Boris Becker, Stich belongs in the International Tennis Hall of Fame.

Patrick Rafter and Lleyton Hewitt continued the Australian tradition of producing excellent theatrics on a tennis court since the days of Laver, Rosewall, and Newcombe. There are no prominent Australians playing the game today, unless you count Hewitt who remains active despite not advancing past the 4th round in any Grand Slam since 2010. At their peaks, Hewitt and Rafter were formidable pests that gave Federer and Sampras some problems, but usually not in Grand Slams. Lleyton Hewitt suffered from the same syndrome as Andy Roddick, with losses in all eight head-to-head meetings with Roger in Grand Slams. Patrick Rafter had a more respectable 1-2 record against Sampras in GS tournaments, but only went 4-12 against him overall. Hewitt did manage to deny David Nalbandian a GS title with a straight set win in the 2002 Wimbledon final. He also beat Sampras for his other major championship, with a convincing 7-6, 6-1, 6-1 victory in the 2001 US Open final. Rafter's finest performances were also at the US Open, where he won both of his GS titles in '97 and '98. His comeback from a two sets to one advantage for Sampras in the 1998 semifinal, coupled with his subjugation of fellow countryman Mark Philippoussis in the subsequent final, must have been Patrick Rafter's greatest achievement. Ironically, neither Hewitt nor Rafter could win the Australian Open even though they were both very good on hard courts.

Many of these players won their lone Grand Slam at Roland Garros: Yannick Noah (1983), Thomas Muster (1995), Michael Chang (1989), and Juan Carlos Ferrero (2003). The French Open had been the most unpredictable major until Nadal came along and virtually owned it for a decade. Muster overcame Chang in '95 to prevent Michael from becoming the second American after Jim Courier to win the French Open multiple times in the Open Era. Noah, the only Frenchman to win at Roland Garros since 1968, combined his enthusiasm and talent to arrive at an improbable victory over Mats Wilander in 1983. Juan Carlos Ferrero arguably had the easiest road to his first Grand Slam than any other player in this class. But Ferrero rates slightly higher than other Spaniards with similar numbers on clay - Sergi Bruguera and Carlos Moya - because of his comparatively better performance in the Masters 1000 tournaments at Madrid, Rome, and Monte Carlo, each of which he won at least once.

Manuel Orantes is the consensus choice as the second best Spaniard to ever play (behind Rafael Nadal). He defeated all-time great Jimmy Connors in straight sets at the 1975 US Open when it was played on clay. Like many Spanish players, he had his best moments on that surface and even took a two set lead over the legendary Bjorn Borg at the 1974 French Open before succumbing to Borg's indomitable will. Stan Smith and Jan Kodes competed in the same era, each winning a Wimbledon title in 1972 and 1973, respectively. Both were accomplished players on grass, with memorable matches between the two at the '71 and '73 US Open when it still had grass courts. Kodes won in five sets over Smith in the 1973 US Open semifinal, but lost to Smith in the 1971 US Open final. As Czechs, Jan Kodes and Miroslav Mecir did not get many headlines, so many tennis fans are not familiar with them. But Kodes is enshrined in the Tennis Hall of Fame for his tenacious effort and pride that he exuded on the court, especially clay where he won two straight Grand Slams at Roland Garros, including his 1971 conquest of an up-and-coming Ilie Nastase.

Yannick Noah, 1983 Champion at Roland Garros

Here are some Sixth Tier examples but the total number in this class would be much greater (at least 20-25 players, and probably quite a few more):

Richard Krajicek (4.10), Pat Cash (4.03), Sergi Bruguera (4.00), Johan Kriek (3.94), Carlos Moya (3.87), Alex Corretja (3.73), Petr Korda (3.53), Andres Gomez (3.50)

That ends my series on placing the greatest tennis players of the Open Era into tiers.

Best Players in the Open Era (4th Tier)

The fourth tier contains an eclectic mix of talented athletes spanning many different eras who were extremely competitive, but struggled to maintain an elite level of performance for more than a few years. Vilas, Newcombe, Ashe, and Nastase were from roughly the same era, while Courier, Roddick, and Murray became superstars for a brief period in recent history. None of these seven players won more than five Grand Slam titles in the Open Era, because their dominance was concentrated into 3-5 years of stellar play. First I will present those men who mainly competed during the 1970s:

Arthur Ashe (5.93* rating), Guillermo Vilas (6.04* rating), Ilie Nastase (6.01* rating), John Newcombe (6.46* rating)
*based on limited statistical information

Arthur Ashe's peak run lasted from 1968 to 1971, where he captured Australian and United States Open titles, two of his three major championships. Guillermo Vilas dominated from 1977 to 1979, winning three of the four majors except Wimbledon, where he never got past the quarterfinals in his career. Ilie Nastase was at his best from 1971 to 1975, winning four of five year-end Masters titles, a record matched only by Roger Federer (2003-2007). He defeated Arthur Ashe in the 1972 US Open final and also seized the 1973 French Open crown. Vilas beat Nastase at 1974's year-end final in five sets, preventing Ilie from winning an unbelievable five championships in a row. John Newcombe, like Ken Rosewall, played before and after the Open era. He was more renowned for his doubles heroics with Tony Roche; together they achieved an unprecedented 12 GS titles, which has since been eclipsed by the Bryan brothers of America. However, Newcombe also won 5 GS singles championships in the Open Era, including two consecutive Wimbledons ('71 & '72) where he overcame two great players - Ken Rosewall and Stan Smith.

If I had to choose the top player among these four - Newcombe, Vilas, Nastase, or Ashe - I would take Nastase because he was capable on every surface. Ilie Nastase went to two Wimbledon finals, losing to Stan Smith and Bjorn Borg in '72 and '76, respectively. His 1972 US Open title was achieved when it was played on outdoor grass courts in Queens. Accounting for his triumph at Roland Garros in '73 and his indoor hardcourt and carpet surface Masters crowns in four out of five years ('71-'75), I can judge that he was the most complete player among these four guys. Head-to-head Nastase was 4-1 against Newcombe and 5-3 versus Ashe, his closest contemporaries in age. Vilas, who was six years younger with a 7-5 edge over Nastase in their matchups, nonetheless failed to go far in Wimbledon and the vast majority of his titles were on clay (46). Guillermo Vilas only had 10 grass and hardcourt championships combined, and his '78 and '79 Australian Open titles on grass were won against the likes of John Marks and John Sadri (Jimmy Connors, Ilie Nastase, and Bjorn Borg were absent from Australia's GS tournament in those days). Ultimately, Arthur Ashe, John Newcombe, Ilie Nastase, and Guillermo Vilas are in the same group for a reason: they all achieved short-term greatness. Ashe's tragic death reminds us of how fast one's life and career can fall from the mountaintop to the earth.

Andy Roddick, Jim Courier, and Andy Murray entered the game of tennis long after most of the above four players had either retired or ceased qualifying for GS singles draws. Yet they seemed to inherit the same trait of a sharp rise and fall from glory. Murray has been relatively more consistent than Roddick and Courier ever were, but has never reached World No. 1 because of the impassable mountain trio of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Courier and Roddick each attained a Year-End World Number One ranking once in 1992 and 2003, respectively, before Sampras and Federer emerged to apply a stranglehold on that position for several years. I would rank these three in the following descending order:

Andy Murray (6.28 rating), Jim Courier (5.48 rating), Andy Roddick (5.38 rating)

Andy Murray's embarrassing loss to Federer (6-0, 6-1) in this week's ATP World Tour Finals highlights his confounding inability to truly solve the Big Three throughout his career. He and Roddick together share the dubious distinction of NEVER subduing Roger Federer in a Grand Slam final in seven attempts (four Wimbledons, two US Opens, one Australian Open). Should we call it the hex of the Andy brothers? In fact, Roddick never won in any round of a GS tournament when he faced Roger, going 0-8. At least Murray managed to vanquish Federer in the 2013 Australian Open, but only after five grueling sets.

Courier had the same problem with Pete Sampras, who bested him in 16 out of 20 matches, including 6 of 8 GS confrontations. One thing I liked about Jim Courier, however, is his winning record against certain Third Tier players, especially in Grand Slams. Overall he was 7-5 vs. Andre Agassi (4-2 in GS) and 6-4 vs. Stefan Edberg (4-2 in GS). Somehow Courier could not sustain the brilliance he displayed on the tennis court for more than three years (1991-93). Andy Roddick's best stretch from 2003-2006 coincided with Federer's incredible ascendancy; otherwise, he probably would have won as many majors as Jim Courier. Courier was lucky that Sampras did not become a dominant force until after 1992. Another minor point in Roddick's favor is his decent performance in contests with Novak Djokovic (5-4) and Rafael Nadal (3-7). He has defeated both legends in a GS tournament (2004 US Open vs. Nadal, 2009 Australian Open vs. Djokovic). I would still rate Courier slightly ahead of Roddick because he did beat Sampras twice in Grand Slams (1991 US Open & 1994 French Open).

Despite his shortcomings, Andy Murray, in my opinion, is arguably the best player among all seven candidates in this Fourth Tier. His QF% of 60%, or notable accomplishment of reaching at least the quarterfinals in 21 of 35 GS, is far superior to anyone else's QF% in this class except John Newcombe, who compiled a QF% of 53% in his whole career (1960-1978). In the Open Era, only Newcombe, Rosewall, Nadal, Federer, Connors, Djokovic, and Borg have registered a QF% above 60%. That is impressive company for someone with just two major titles. Murray also sports a winning percentage of 80% (134-33 W-L) in all Grand Slam matches; the next best in this seven-man grouping are John Newcombe (78%, i.e. 152-44) and Arthur Ashe (77%, i.e. 138-41). Ilie Nastase, whom I would rank second here, won 58 career titles. Newcombe and Ashe, whom I would rank third and fourth on this list, each won 34 career titles. Vilas, a clay-court specialist, would rank fifth, followed by Courier and Roddick. That completes our fourth tier, the largest collection so far in one class, which is not incidental. The further you go down the ladder, the wider the steps, because the best athletes are rarer and the average ones are much more common.

Best Players in the Open Era (3rd Tier)

Third Tier consists of five more players, one of them being somebody who competed before and after the Open era: Ken Rosewall. The others listed all played against each other on several occasions during the '80s and '90s.

Andre Agassi (7.75), Boris Becker (7.59), Stefan Edberg (7.10), Ken Rosewall (6.98*), Mats Wilander (6.87 rating)

The third tier players are not far behind their second tier contemporaries. Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, and Mats Wilander legitimately challenged the dominance of Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe during the mid to late 1980s. Andre Agassi missed five more GS tournaments than Pete Sampras in the 1990s, but still managed to push his rival throughout the decade. If Agassi had not lost most of 1997 due to injury and contended in more Australian Opens, he might have ranked higher in the second tier. He was less dominant but more versatile than Sampras, getting to the quarterfinals of the French Open more than half the time (9 of 17). On hardcourts, Andre was almost equal to Pete, but lost to him in three US Open finals (2002, 1995, 1990). Agassi did beat Sampras twice in the Australian Open (1995 Final, 2000 Semifinal) but never had much luck against him on grass (Wimbledon) with two losses and zero victories, or on the carpet surface (2 wins, 5 losses).

Andre Agassi is definitely the best player in this class, owning a commanding win-loss percentage of 70% (21-9 record) combined against Becker (10-4), Edberg (6-3), and Wilander (5-2). True, these three excelled primarily in an earlier era (1985-1989), but Edberg and Becker were still prominent through the early '90s. Surprisingly, Boris Becker was 25-10 versus Stefan Edberg, not unlike Nadal's 23-10 record against Federer. However, Edberg defeated Becker in some critical matches, including the 1989 French Open Semifinal, as well as the 1988 and 1990 Wimbledon Finals. Wilander's biggest claim to fame is his success in prevailing over Ivan Lendl on three different surfaces in GS finals ('83 Australian Open on grass, '85 French Open on clay, '88 US Open on hard). Boris Becker was even more impressive, going undefeated with a 3-0 record in GS finals against Lendl ('86 Wimbledon, '89 US Open, '91 Australian Open). Wilander was only 3-7 head-to-head against Becker, but somehow won easily in straight sets in all three GS matches against him ('85 & '87 at Roland Garros, '90 Australian Open). It is very close between Becker, Wilander, and Edberg, but I would rank them in that aforementioned order (descending).

Ken Rosewall was basically a poor man's Rod Laver, short in height and slight in weight but compensated for those perceived weaknesses with aplomb and a terrific backhand. He was the oldest male ever (age 37) to win a Grand Slam in 1972, when he won the Australian Open for a second consecutive year, both times in straight sets. He also won the 1968 French Open in four sets over Laver (6-3, 6-1, 2-6, 6-2). Both Rosewall and Laver lost valuable years before being allowed to participate in major tournaments at the start of the Open Era in '68. Rosewall's rating here is mainly based on what he did after 1968, so you could even argue he belongs in the second group with Connors and the rest. But I choose to be conservative in assessing athletes from that time, and while I have a high regard for the second best small man to compete in professional tennis, I think he belongs in this tier. Rod Laver would be at least in the second class with Sampras if I were ranking his body of work, but I am not sure if I would put him in the same group as Bjorn Borg. No matter where you rank Rosewall or Laver, they should be an inspiration for all the vertically challenged tennis players who want to succeed in the future. Many smaller players like Lleyton Hewitt, Michael Chang, and David Ferrer have tried to replicate their feats but fell short (pun intended). Perhaps Kei Nishikori can reverse that trend after garnering momentum from his US Open performance and potential advancement in the ongoing ATP World Tour Finals.

Best Players in the Open Era (1st and 2nd Tiers)

Instead of listing them one by one, I will group the best tennis players into classes or tiers, where all the members of that class are about the same caliber or achieved similar career numbers. Some of these groups may surprise you, become some players (especially from the USA) are a little overrated and European players are sometimes underrated because of American bias. Most analysts choose Federer or Nadal as the greatest player, but Bjorn Borg may have been just as good, and these three form our first tier:

Bjorn Borg (10.03 rating), Roger Federer (10.09 rating), Rafael Nadal (10.12 rating)

Borg won four straight French Opens and five consecutive Wimbledon championships, with the highest Quarterfinal Percentage (QF%) in Grand Slams, reaching at least the quarters in 21 of 27 GS tournaments (78%). Only Novak Djokovic and Jimmy Connors have a QF% above 70% among the greats (Federer and Nadal are both at 69% in this category). Bjorn Borg also has the best winning percentage (141-16 or 90%) in Grand Slams. If he had played a few more years instead of retiring prematurely, he would have probably eclipsed Nadal and come close to Federer's record of 17 Grand Slams. Borg was the champion in 11 of 27 GS singles draws, an unbelievable 41% success rate. Even at half that rate, he would have gotten one out of every five majors, and passed Nadal's 14 GS titles with 4 majors in five years. He could have then retired at age 31, instead of quitting at the young age of 26. Because he gave up too soon, I cannot rank him ahead of Nadal or Federer. But he was definitely the first dominant player in the history of modern tennis.

Now for the second tier, I selected five players who are a shade below the elite first tier:

*asterisk means tentative rating based on limited statistical information

Pete Sampras (8.40 rating), Jimmy Connors (8.80* rating), John McEnroe (8.81 rating), Novak Djokovic (9.02 rating), Ivan Lendl (9.45 rating)

Sampras has the lowest rating among these guys, mainly because he could not win much on clay, with only one French Open semifinal and three quarterfinal appearances. In all other years, he failed to reach the 4th round. He won just three clay court titles his entire career, one of them in the Masters Series at Rome, Italy. Pete Sampras defeated Boris Becker in straight sets there, but this was not a great accomplishment. Becker never won a single professional clay court tournament, going 0-6 in finals. Pete Sampras has a lower QF% in Grand Slams (56%) than the other four players in this tier, even though he did go 14-4 in GS finals, including 8 consecutive wins. Thus, Pistol Pete was kind of boom or bust, and like Nadal he missed or skipped some Grand Slams, especially the Australian Open in '91, '92, and '99. Sampras was probably the most talented American tennis player ever, but his skill set did not always translate well to certain surfaces or situations. He had a great serve, solid volley, and dangerous forehand, but the other parts of his game were somewhat ordinary (return of serve and backhand). Head-to-head Pete Sampras appears to have an edge over John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl, but those two were both more than ten years older than him and past their primes when they faced him.

The ratings of McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl are enhanced by the larger number of year-end tournaments (WCT Finals and Tour Finals) during the 1980s, so one can still make an argument for Sampras as the best player in this class. Personally, I would rank them subjectively in the following order: Lendl, Djokovic, Sampras, McEnroe, Connors. Ivan Lendl won twice as many Masters Series titles (22) as Pete Sampras (11). Lendl and Sampras are tied for the most consecutive seasons (11) reaching at least one GS final. They both made it to eight US Open finals (Lendl did it for eight years in a row from '82 to '89 - no other player has reached more than seven straight finals in a particular Grand Slam). Federer appeared in 7 consecutive Wimbledon finals from 2003 to 2009, the next longest streak. Lendl played in 19 GS finals, while Sampras reached 18 GS finals. But Lendl's main downfall was his 8-11 losing record in those biggest matches of his life, and Sampras shined the brightest in those clutch moments. Ivan Lendl was equal to or better than Pete Sampras in terms of their accomplishments except in this ultimate category.

Novak Djokovic may end up being the highest-rated player in this group by the end of his career. He has gone to 22 GS quarterfinals in a row, and has the second-highest QF% behind Bjorn Borg, with 30 trips in 40 Grand Slams (75%). He is a model of consistency who has not missed a major tournament since 2005. If he had played in an era without even one of the two greatest ever - Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal - he might have been regarded as arguably the best tennis player of all time. He is a combination of the best attributes of earlier players (Lendl's baseline groundstrokes, Agassi's service return and two-handed backhand, Connors' relentlessness and determination). Speaking of Andre Agassi, he will headline the third tier which I will discuss in my next post.

Who is the Greatest Tennis Player of All-Time?

Roger Federer (currently participating as the #2 favorite in the ATP World Tour Finals) has definitely been one of the most durable and consistent players on the men's tour. Rafael Nadal, on the other hand, is missing yet another important tournament. He has skipped four Grand Slams over the last six years alone ('09 Wimbledon, '12 & '14 US Open, '13 Australian Open). The repeating trend in each of those four lost opportunities due to injury was the notable fact that he reached the final in each of those Grand Slams the previous year, including his 2008 Wimbledon and 2013 US Open titles. Because of his failure to defend major titles, Rafa has never won two consecutive Grand Slams, except for the French Open of course. Nadal has also failed to play in two of the last three ATP year-end championships in London, and has never won the ATP World Tour Finals, with runner-up finishes to Djokovic and Federer in 2013 and 2010, respectively.

Federer has competed in every Grand Slam since 2000, a string of 15 consecutive seasons! In addition, he has won half of the last 12 Year-End Championships (Masters Cup or World Tour Finals), where he has qualified and played every year since 2002. Roger's perpetual dominance landed him five straight US Open AND Wimbledon championships, a ridiculous feat unmatched in the history of tennis. He also captured the Australian Open three times in a four year span (2004-2007), losing only once in an epic five-set semifinal match to 2005 champ Marat Safin. If not for Safin's heroics, Federer likely would have won four consecutive Australian Open titles as well. All these facts point to Roger being anointed the greatest player of our generation, and arguably the best ever.

The problem arises when we compare Nadal and Federer head-to-head (23-10 record, a big edge for Nadal), and also when we examine how each has performed against other opponents in every tournament. To put it simply, if I had to win one match (assuming both players are at the top of their game and healthy) I would pick Nadal on any surface (except maybe grass). Rafa's youth (Federer is 5 years older) has helped him in later years against Roger (since 2008 Nadal is 15-4 versus Federer, while he had a more even 8-6 record between 2004-2007), and he always seems to have the upper hand or a slight psychological edge when facing Roger. Even if they had played more grass-court matches (Federer is 2-1 here, all at Wimbledon) and fewer clay-court matches (Nadal is 13-2 here, and 9-6 on hardcourts), Nadal would probably still have an overall winning record against his rival, although the gap would not be so wide.

Nadal also enjoys a healthy record against Djokovic (23-19) and Murray (15-5), the next best players of this era. Roger Federer is even with Andy Murray (11-11) entering their upcoming matchup in London, and practically tied with Djokovic (19-17), though he did score a brilliant victory over Novak in the semifinals at Shanghai this year. Murray has said that Nadal is the toughest opponent he has faced, and I agree with him.

In conclusion, I would probably choose a healthy Rafa over anyone if I wanted to win one match or one tournament. But if I wanted to win the most titles over a given year, or consecutive stretch of seasons, I would always chose Federer. Therefore, the question of "Who is the Greatest Tennis Player of All-Time?" is not really a matter for debate as it is a decision on what attributes you value more. My rating accounts for all of them and spits out nearly identical ratings for the two best players ever - 10.12 for Nadal and 10.05 for Federer, a trivial difference that may change minimally pending the outcome of this year's final spectacle (Federer's rating could go up to 10.11 if he goes undefeated in London). Both of these two tennis greats have already cemented their legacies, and anything they achieve in the future will not drastically affect their numerical evaluation. They are the two perfect '10' tennis players, the best left-handed racquet wielder and the best right-handed shot maker.

Tennis Rating Formula

We simply look at performance across the three main kinds of tournaments:
Grand Slams, Masters Series 1000, World Tour Finals (Year-End Championships)

Multiplying weights are based on the point system (e.g. 1200 points for runner-up in a Grand Slam and 2000 points for the winner means 1200/2000 = 0.6 coefficient for GS Runner-Up in the formula below). We look at performance from two perspectives: firstly the percentage of tournaments where he won or reached a certain round (e.g. SF), and secondly the total number of accomplishments. A player's QF% equals the percentage of tournaments where he reached the quarterfinals, and the number of quarterfinals in Grand Slams are also counted and weighted separately. We only count semifinal appearances as significant in the other tournaments. This leads to a neat mathematical rating that ranges from around 5 to 10 for the top 25-30 players of the last 40-50 years since the Open Era began in 1968. However, statistical data for players from the 1970s and earlier is harder to find, so I have avoided ranking some of the professionals who also played in the 1960s like Rod Laver. Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Bjorn Borg each registered a numerical rating that is just slightly above 10. Based on my calculations, they are the three most dominant tennis players since 1970.

Because 720 points are awarded to a Grand Slam semifinalist (36% of the 2000 given to the champion), and half of 720 (18% of 2000) goes to a GS quarterfinalist, we get the multiplying coefficients .36 and .18 for those results. Similarly, the year-end champion usually gets 1300 or 1500 points, depending on whether or not he goes undefeated. This number ranges from 65% to 75%, but I felt that for the sake of simplicity and the relatively smaller impact of this tournament compared to Masters 1000 and Grand Slams, I would stick with the higher percentage of 75%.

Masters championships (1000 points) are worth 50% of Grand Slam wins (2000 points), and since I divide the number of Grand Slam titles by a fixed divisor (100), the accumulated total of Masters titles are divided by twice that amount (200) to decrease their measuring significance in evaluating the player to half that of his Grand Slams. In other words, his Grand Slam titles are counted two times more than his Masters titles.

{
 [ [GS Titles + (GS Runner-Ups × 0.6) +
  (GS Semifinals × 0.36) + (GS Quarterfinals × 0.18)]  ÷  GS Tournaments ]  +

 [ [(Year-End Wins × 0.75) + (Masters Titles × 0.5) +
   (Year-End Runner-Ups × 0.5) + (Masters Runner-Ups × 0.3) +
   (Year-End Semifinals × 0.2) + (Masters Semifinals × 0.18)]  ÷
   [Year-End Tournaments + Masters Tournaments] ]  +

 (GS Titles ÷ 100) +
 (GS Runner-Ups ÷ 167) +
 (GS Semifinals ÷ 278) +
 (GS Quarterfinals ÷ 556) +

 (Year-End Wins ÷ 150) +
 (Year-End Runner-Ups ÷ 200) +
 (Year-End Semifinals ÷ 500) +

 (Masters Titles ÷ 200) +
 (Masters Runner-Ups ÷ 333) +
 (Masters Semifinals ÷ 556)
}  x 10

Rafael Nadal has won 14 major titles, 27 Master Series titles, but only two runner-ups in the ATP World Tour Finals. His record is 14-6 in GS Finals, with an additional 3 semifinal and 4 quarterfinal appearances out of 39 GS tournaments. In Masters 1000 finals, he holds an amazing 27-13 record, and also reached 14 semifinals (where he lost) out of 83 total singles draws in the Masters series. Plugging these numbers into our formula we get:

{
 [14 + (6 × 0.6) + (3 × 0.36) + (4 × 0.18)]  ÷  39]

 [(0 × 0.75) + (27 × 0.5) + (2 × 0.5) + (13 × 0.3) + (2 × 0.2) + (14 × 0.18)]  ÷ [6 + 83]

 (14 ÷ 100) + (6 ÷ 167) + (3 ÷ 278) + (4 ÷ 556) + (0 ÷ 150) + (2 ÷ 200) + (2 ÷ 500) +
 (27 ÷  200) + (13 ÷ 333) + (14 ÷ 556)

} x 10

=  11.44 for Rafael Nadal

Total Win% across Grand Slam, Year-End, and Masters Series 1000 (Grand Prix) tournaments and Win-Loss Diff across these three categories make up the second part of the formula. Nadal is 187-25 across Grand Slams, 281-55 in the Masters Series 1000, and 13-11 in World Tour Finals for a total win-loss of 481-91 (84.1% winning percentage), and so Rafa has triumphed in 390 more contests than he has been defeated in (481 subtracted by 91). We take these two statistics and get a secondary rating based on his career win-loss:

(Total Win% x 10) + (Win-Loss Diff ÷ 1000)  =  (.841 x 10) + (390 ÷ 1000)
= 8.80 for Rafael Nadal

Average of these two ratings gives us a final rating. Thus: (11.44 + 8.80) ÷  2  =  10.12 for Nadal

It is quite impossible to have a final rating much higher than 10 because Total Win% rarely exceeds 80% over all three tournaments. Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl are the only six players to accomplish this in the history of the Open Era. Connors and Sampras came close and they round out the top eight players since the 1970s.